Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Thursday, December 31, 2015

It's getting to become a common thing, just press play to hear approval for things that are passed off as "science". We've seen many times some amazingly unscientific speculations presented to the world as scientific advances, especially in areas related to origins. The Darwinism supporters in the press are all-fired joyful about sharing it with the world, often embellishing the "discoveries".

If people had a mind to, they could examine these speculations and see that there is no actual science involved, just expensive words given with authority. To hear Darwinistas tell it, the consensus is that evolution is true, and scientists are all in agreement. Not hardly! I reckon they're getting more and more desperate to avoid facing evidence for the Creator, don't you?

A scientist examines Earth animals, and has a guess as to what aliens would look like

Evolution treated like an entity with the ability to learn

Evolution is like a computer program, with the ability to imitate aspects of computation

The hands at the Darwin Ranch are not known for their efficient reasoning abilities. Ignoring data and alternative explanations are common over there, and in this case, the possibility that similarities can be a strong indication of the Master Designer that created us all is conveniently ignored. By the way, questions of "Why?" are not in the realm of naturalism, they are theological in nature.

Evolutionists commonly argue that the supposed 98% genetic similarity between chimps and humans is evidence that they share a common ancestor. Creationists have put forward a number of responses to this, but there is an implicit assumption in both the evolutionary argument and typical creationist responses—that the higher the genetic similarity between two species, the more likely it is that they had a common ancestor. Is this necessarily the case? Might high genetic similarity, under certain circumstances, actually be evidence for design? Donald H. from the United States writes:

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

A new gibbon fossil has Darwinoids singing the same old song: "Look! Evolution!" Not hardly. As we have seen many times before, advocates of germ-to-gibbon evolution will "see" evidence for their conjectures where none exists, as well as giving credit to the puny god of evolution for any kind of change in an organism.

Now there's a newly discovered gibbon fossil that some people think may shake the family tree. Actually, it's a case of, big deal, since the usual "convergent evolution" and other convenient evidence-free machinations for evolution are invoked. More than that, the fossil is probably just another extinct variation on gibbons, does not give information about ancestral relationships, or anything useful other than being something shiny for evolutionary biologists to play with.

The fossil Pliobates cataloniae could upset the accepted evolutionary concept of our remote family tree, or at least the shape and size of its occupants. Seventy fragments of the gibbon-like ape’s skull and left arm were recovered from a landfill in Spanish Catalonia near Barcelona. The scientists who put this Humpty Dumpty together again estimate that in life it weighed only 8–10 pounds. They nicknamed it “Laia”—short for “Eulalia,” the patron saint of Barcelona—because they believe it sheds light on the common ancestor supposedly shared by monkeys, apes, and humans.“Pliobates enlightens our understanding of how this ancestor would have looked, in particular by suggesting that in several respects, such as skull shape or body size, it would have been more similar to gibbons than previously thought,” says David Alba, lead author of the study of Pliobates published in Science. Staking his claim for the fossil’s evolutionary significance, he adds, “Being at the root of apes, including humans as well, means that in terms of kinship, the new genus is more closely related to extant apes and humans than previously known basal apes.”

Monday, December 28, 2015

There's a false claim by anti-creationists that the term living fossil was invented by creationists. Even if that were true, such a claim would be meaningless. But the fact is, it goes back to Charles Darwin his own self, and other non-creationists use it as well. You savvy? A "living fossil" is something that exists today and is essentially unchanged from those found in fossils alleged to be millions or billions of years old.

Sure, evolutionists have excuses for that. One is that it didn't need to evolve. Right. Even though they claim that other creatures faced genetic mutations and environmental pressures that brought about evolution, but many things were unaffected? On one had, evolution is an irresistible force, but on the other hand, it doesn't happen. That's a policeman's exit (cop out). It seems that some people will come up with almost any excuse to deny the obvious: life was created recently, and evidence for dust-to-Darwinist evolution is nonexistent.The chambered nautilus has been fished almost to extinction so people can sell their shells by the seashore and on eBay, among other things. But this critter shows no appreciable difference from its ancestors, except a loss of variability. Similarly, the extremely far-fetched story of turtle evolution has no fossil record support. In both cases, these living fossils (and others) add consternation for the hands at the Darwin Ranch.

According to Genesis 1:21, “God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind.” The creation of original, distinct creature kinds confronts the evolutionary teaching that animals can endlessly morph from one form to another. Recent news reports reveal two clear illustrations of sea creatures living and reproducing according to their kinds right from the start.The stunningly beautiful chambered nautilus features its famous coiled and symmetrical shell. Deep-sea shell hunters overharvest the tentacled predators by setting baited traps, sometimes as deep as 2,000 feet below the surface of southwest Pacific Ocean waters. Fishermen apparently suffer no regulations as they supply a growing market for the alluring nautilus shells.

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Secular cosmologists have been hanging their hats on the Big Bang for decades. Since accumulating data are recalcitrant, they keep changing the models and speculations. One of the main points is what is termed dark matter. According to cosmic evolution tales, this is the stuff that comprises most of the universe, but it has not been observed or detected in any way, but we're supposed to believe it on their say-so, what with them being scientists and all. Such a concept is plumb loco to my reckoning.

Governments have been spending mucho dinero on searching for something that only exists on paper, which is based on atheistic origin mythology. In actuality, there was no Big Bang and the universe was created recently. Why do you think astronomers and cosmologists keep getting surprised by discoveries? Evidence supports recent creation, old son.

Astronomers are spending millions on their biggest gamble yet: looking for something that may not exist.Are physicists, astronomers and cosmologists hunting for ghosts? The lure of being first to discover something big is prompting countries around the globe to spend millions of dollars on expensive detectors deep underground, at the poles, or in space — for what? Particles they can’t describe, have never been detected, and may not even exist. The stakes are high: whoever finds dark matter will gain international prestige. If everyone loses, it will have been an expensive snipe hunt with nothing to show for it. Even worse, cosmologists will have to revise their fundamental theories in major ways.

Friday, December 25, 2015

by Cowboy Bob SorensenI disremember how I came across this 2012 article, "Should Humanity Take Religion On Interstellar Space Voyage?", but thought it had some things that needed addressing. It's obviously written from a secularist perspective, and the token Christian that they interviewed certainly did not express an understanding of the Bible. He said we have to leave behind Earth-based religions. I reckon he doesn't know about religion, history — and people.

It's one thing to leave behind our political views or other things that we select, but the Christian faith is who we are, it's not like choosing a hat or something. A Christian has been changed by God (2 Cor. 5:17) and is adopted as one of his children (John 1:12, Rom. 8:15, Heb. 12:7). Several astronauts are Christians, including James Irwin, Jack Lousma, Rick Husband and Michael Anderson (who perished in the 2003 Columbia disaster), Buzz Aldrin (who took communion on the moon), and others. Who you are goes with you.The concept of life on other worlds is based on naturalistic presuppositions. But what of the bigger question that may arise, "Should we proclaim our religious views to inhabitants of other worlds?" There's a short story by Ray Bradbury that was in The Illustrated Man. It's called "The Fire Balloons", and I seem to recollect pertinent parts. Some priests want to convert Martians, who exist as spheres of energy. They built a church and offered them an idol of one of their own kind, but it was all rejected. Apparently, since they were not physical, they didn't need redemption.Actually, I think Bradbury was on the right track."But Cowboy Bob, how is this related to Christmas?" On December 25, many people observe the birth of Jesus (some foolishly claim that he never existed). Adam, the first man, sinned, and death entered the picture, effecting everything (Rom. 5:12, Rom 8:20-22). All have sinned (Rom. 3:23) and deserve death (Rom. 6:23a). God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, is the Creator (John 1:3, Col. 1:16-17). He humbled himself and took on the form of man (Phil. 2:6-7). Jesus died on the cross for our sins, was buried, and bodily raised on the third day (1 Cor. 15:3-9, Acts 2:31, Mark 16:14, John 20:19-20). Jesus was the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45) who died for our sins. Although we all deserve death (Rom. 6:23, Isaiah 53:6, Psalm 53:2-3), all who humble themselves and receive him by faith become transformed (2 Cor. 5:17). In addition, we become God's children (John 1:12, Rom. 8:15-16, 1 John 3:1). That's a great reason to celebrate the birth of Jesus! You, too, can have salvation through Jesus Christ. For an explanation and gospel message, click here.Although it's not a hill that I'd lead a cavalry charge on, I lack belief that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, both scientifically and theologically. Although there are assumptions of evolution and "deep time" made by secularists, playing the odds that there must be life way out yonder is a losing gamble, and the odds are getting worse all the time. For science and theology about this, see "Did God create life on other planets?"

Jesus was born, died, and rose again for the Adamic race (us). For the reasons cited above, there is no reason to think we should preach the gospel and hope that Xenu will bow his knee (?) in repentance. To expect possible travelers to the stars to leave their religion behind is ridiculous, but it will most likely be for their own benefit and not for alleged extraterrestrial denizens.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Although many people deny it, people live according to their worldviews. In the issues of the age of the Earth, origin and development of life, cosmic evolution, ice ages, and other historical science matters, we have seen time and again that preconceptions influence the interpretation of data. "Science" is not a monolith of absolute truth remaining uncompromised by the assertions of dispassionate scientists.

The Ice Age raises many questions, Manfred. Did it happen? How did it happen? How many were there? How long did it last? When it comes to the Ice Age, secular scientists are unable to saddle the data with their conjectures and models, especially the idea of multiple ice ages over long periods of time. Then they'll challenge biblical creationists to explain the Ice Age. Since scientists interpret data according to their worldviews, creationists find that recent creation, the global Genesis Flood, and other factors show that the biblical creationist view explains data far better than secularist views.

Secular scientists have challenged creation scientists to explain the Ice Age. Also, they claim that there were numerous ice ages, possibly up to fifty, at intervals of 100,000 or 40,000 years over the past 2.6 million years. Bible believers need to respond to this challenge by appealing to 1 Thessalonians 5:21: “Examine everything carefully; hold fast that which is good” (NASB). As we maintain confidence in God’s word we need to carefully examine the observed data and be wary of how naturalism (‘there is no God’) has influenced its interpretations.

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Back in the early days of photography, subjects were told to "watch the birdie". Nowadays, that endangered expression merely means that a picture is about to be taken. What do birdies watch? For that matter, another idiom is "get a bird's-eye view", which usually means way up high, getting the perspective of a bird in flight or on top of a tree.

Of course, Darwinists will come up with unsupportable conjectures on the evolution of sight and the ability to see color (birds see more colors, and other things, than we do), but those are guesses passed along as science. The birdie is watching far more than people realize, and their bird's-eye view was designed by our Creator.

When you see a hawk soaring high overhead, have you wondered what the view looks like from up there? Well, the bird’s-eye view involves much more than the panoramic view we see from an airplane.For starters, birds can see a wider range of colors than we humans can. Apparently, most birds can see all the colors we see, plus colors in the ultraviolet range that are invisible to us. This is possible because birds have four different types of color-sensitive cone cells in their retina, while humans have only three.It’s difficult for us to appreciate what the bird’s expanded color vision would look like since we can’t even imagine colors we have never seen. But studies have shown that birds can see ultraviolet colors in the feathers of other birds, as well as in some flowers, fruits, and berries. This ability appears to play an important role in mate selection, as well as in foraging for food.

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Even though none of the theories of solar system formation actually work, cosmologists tend to favor the nebular hypothesis, where everything formed from the same hot gas. It swirled, the sun and planets formed — and questions are raised. One of the most obvious problems is the way some of the planets act: Uranus is tipped on its side, effectively rolling in its orbit, and Venus has a retrograde rotation (goes in the opposite direction as the other planets). There are more problems and questions, but the public is given the sanitized version that sounds true, even though there's no evidence for cosmic evolution. Recent discoveries are mighty unfriendly to the concept.

Studies of other solar systems get cosmologists and astronomers a mite consternated, since things they've found are way out of whack and not conducive to life. Our solar system has a right friendly sun, the moon is unique in relation to the Earth and sun unlike other moons, plus the whole shootin' match is kept in balance. Why did God create those gas giants way, way out there? They actually help.

For decades it has been somewhat of a mystery to secularists as to why our solar system is structured the way it is: the four gas giants—Saturn and Jupiter, composed mainly of helium and hydrogen, and Uranus and Neptune—orbiting far away from the sun, and the four smaller rocky planets, the terrestrials—Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars—orbiting much closer to the sun.

Astronomers are puzzled that other recently discovered planetary systems look so different from ours. One evolutionist stated, “There are so many surprises in this field—almost nothing is turning out as we expected.” Indeed, for the secular astronomer, basic planet construction is caught on the horns of a dilemma.

Monday, December 21, 2015

Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a coffee fruit. Or bananas. Whatever. They bother a lot of people, but don't seem to do a lot of harm. (Our Basement Cat eats the things if she can catch them.) They do lay eggs in our stuff, though. These monstrous, huge aviators (1/8 inch, 3-4 mm) not only thwart efforts to force them to evolve, they're full of fascinating information — and possible inspirations for applications.

Although larger flying insects are studied, scientists are discovering just how they were intricately created; they defy evolution. (Not that fungus-to-fruit fly evolutionists will admit that they defy evolution, of course.) Their flight stabilizers are controlled by a kind of multiprocessor in their tiny brains, their biological clocks are being studied to possibly benefit human health, and more. It's a-pear-ant that you should read the article at "Design in Tiny Fruit Flies".

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, December 19, 2015

It's a war zone. No, not a military campaign. This war is going on inside you on the microscopic level. Your immune system identifies threats and discerns how to deal with an intruder (or just ignore it), and the system replaces its working parts, has search and destroy missions, passive barriers, and much more.

Camp Lejeune, North Carolina - Marines with Bravo Company, 2nd Combat Engineer BattalionPhoto by Lance Cpl. David HerseyImage use does not imply endorsement of any of this site's contents by the US Department of Defense

Advocates of molecules-to-Marine evolution have hindered the understanding of biology. We have two lines of defense, and the first line was pretty much ignored as something inherited by our alleged evolutionary forebears. The second line of defense got most of the attention because they assumed it evolved (without anything other than "evolution did it"). A lot of information was undiscovered, and now scientists are realizing that our systems are far more efficient and intricate than previously realized, and there's a great deal more to learn. Our Creator put these things in place for a purpose.The following informative article by Dr. Joseph Francis has a very interesting narrative. In addition, there is a creation science take on things.

Safety and security in the twenty-first century is more complicated than ever. In a terrifying new world of terrorism and cyber war, the threats are not just on the battlefield or countered with soldiers and guns. It’s often hard to separate foe from friend.Our body experiences similar but vastly more complex challenges every day. And it has done so ever since Adam fell into sin approximately six thousand years ago. We may be impressed by the latest developments in counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and counterespionage, promoted by Homeland Security and Cyber Command. But they don’t begin to match the know-how of the human body, which God designed to help us, even in the challenging world since the Fall.These systems are up and running minute by minute, 24 hours a day, surveying our bodies for foreign invaders and following a series of pre-thought-out plans to protect us from ever-changing, life-threatening infections. We don’t have to supervise them—or even understand how they work—for them to be effective. Even with our latest technology, we’re still trying to unravel the secrets of this incredibly designed system that should be a constant reminder of God’s mercy.

Friday, December 18, 2015

The first thing taught in Darwinian catechism is that evolution is a given. Second is that Earth is billions of years old. When evidence is presented that threatens either assumption, evolutionists tend to get on the prod and try to dismiss the evidence (you may like "Fear and Loathing of Dinosaur Research by Evolutionists", "Dinosaur Soft Tissues and Evolutionist Science Deniers", and "Soft Tissue Time Paradox" by ICR's Dr. Vernon Cupps). Dinosaur soft tissues have them mighty angry because the evidence strongly refutes not only the idea that dinosaurs have been extinct for tens of millions of years, but that the planet is as old as they want it to be for evolution to happen. The real evidence, without evolutionary trappings, shows that everything was created recently, and did not evolve in the Darwin way.

Someone sneered on one of my posts, "What next, dinosaur DNA?" Pay attention, Pilgrim. It may be sequenced very soon.Brian Thomas from the Institute for Creation Research was interviewed by Bob Enyart on Real Science Radio. They discussed a fascinating article that Mr. Thomas had written about bats, pitcher plants, symbiosis, and the like. (Evolutionary explanations for these phenomena are very, very weak.) Then they moved on to the main topic. Brian has done extensive research and compiled a whole whack of information about soft tissues. To listen to the discussion and see links for additional information, click on "ICR's Dinosaur Tissue Expert Brian Thomas on RSR".

Click for larger

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, December 17, 2015

When we point out that evolution is actually an ancient religious view, uninformed Darwinistas tend to get a mite irritated and tell us, with incontrovertible logic, "That's not true!" This is often accompanied by assorted insults. If they had a mind to do some homework, they'd learn that evolution goes back to the ancient Greeks, and beyond that.

For that matter, when anti-creationists want to claim that we believe in Bronze Age fairy tales, they'd be upset to learn that forms of evolution have been the subject of fantasies and legends in many ancient cultures. To equate the Bible and biblical creation with fairy tales, magic, and other ideas is not only ignorant, but disingenuous.I've been told to read Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, maybe I'd learn something. First, which version? It's been revised several times. Second, it's been largely abandoned by knowledgeable evolutionists. Third, Darwin did not dream evolution all by his lonesome, since several forms of it (including ancient religions and superstitions) have been around for quite a while; Darwin was just the latest to tweak and promote the idea (political humor on that is here). Darwin was not a "brilliant scientist", by the way, his only formal training was in theology. In a discussion back yonder, the question was asked, "What if Darwin had never been born?" It wouldn't matter, someone else would have been the latest promoter of evolutionism.

The theory of biological evolution is not a modern idea as is often supposed. Organic evolution was first taught by the Greeks at least as early as the 7th century BC. Greek philosophers probably borrowed and adapted their evolutionary ideas from the Hindus, who believed that souls transformed from one animal to another until they reached a perfection state called nirvana. Charles Darwin allegedly made no contributions to the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection, but simply helped to popularize it. Evolutionists today argue that evolution is a modern idea (i.e. a product of scientific research), in part as an effort to lend credibility to their worldview.

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

The popular conception of scientists is that they are driven by facts and reason, and have everyone's best interests at heart. Also, scientists are above regular people, uncorrupted by greed and avarice, so they're morally above us as well. If you study on it, you'll see that this Scientism view makes them non-human. But they're not automatons.

It occurs to me that one reason people may be looking up to scientists is something left behind from the days of class distinctions. Edjamakation was not freely available to all, only the elite few. (If someone was wealthy, they were somehow "better" than the poor, who were also created in God's image.) So, a scientist was a better, elite person who had money for education, so you have jolly well listen. These days, degrees are much more freely available, and the criteria for granting them are much lower.Everyone has a worldview, even though most don't sit down and cognate on it, "Here's my worldview, and it's based on this and that". We also interpret things we see (including scientific evidence) according to these worldviews. Christians are supposed to have a Bible-based worldview as their final authority for faith and daily living. Many scientists have a naturalistic a priori belief system, and many are atheists. Bill Nye is a popular "expert" on many things, including abortion, but the influence of his worldview clearly affects his pronouncements. Even though they're scientists, they can be wrong, both morally and in their fields of expertise.

I was talking to a woman a spell back. Her mother was in a nursing home, but wanted to go back to her apartment. The woman said no, she's not capable of being on her own, but the head nurse disagreed and the mother was discharged. Less than a week later, she was readmitted. Later, she was sent home again, even though the daughter knew it was a bad idea. After a while, the mother was re-readmitted. Permanently. The "experts" were plumb wrong.Interestingly enough, this seems to be a Western thing. Eastern countries are not as scientist-adoring as the West, and some Middle Eastern countries even show disdain for science and research. That's how it seems to me, anyway.When scientists get to fiddling around with things like genetic editing, they are faced with ethical and moral considerations. Are all scientists professing atheists? Not hardly! Many are atheists and naturalists, and atheism has a faulty moral compass. In addition, big-money science has a leftist slant. Things tend to get dicey when moral matters are decided by elitists who exclude people who are not leftist and materialist in discussions and policy making.

By assuming misbehavior evolves, some scientists become agents of evil, and Big Science institutions become their enablers.Take any behavior that the Bible condemns, and you will find a scientist saying it’s not so bad—maybe even good. Failing to find bad consequences in their research, they assume that engaging in certain evil deeds can be justifiable in some contexts. In other cases, they rationalize behaviors traditionally considered evil, thinking that humans are mere products of evolutionary heredity or environment.In their misguided belief that science can be morally neutral, they become Satan’s tools to corrupt society. Here are some recent examples.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

by Cowboy Bob SorensenHave you ever had the experience where you reckoned someone as hostile, or even an enemy, and it turned out that the person actually had your best interests at heart? Of course, people may not cotton to being coddling, so they speak their minds or simply take direct action — especially when something is important.

Here's an excerpt from Owen Wister's 1902 classic, The Virginian: A Horseman of the Plains:

But all the while I was wondering about the Virginian: eating with him, sleeping with him (only not so sound as he did), and riding beside him often for many hours.Experiments in conversation I did make -- and failed. One day particularly while, after a sudden storm of hail had chilled the earth numb and white like winter in fifteen minutes, we sat drying and warming ourselves by a fire that we built, I touched upon that theme of equality on which I knew him to hold opinions as strong as mine. "Oh," he would reply, and "Cert'nly"; and when I asked him what it was in a man that made him a leader of men, he shook his head and puffed his pipe. So then, noticing how the sun had brought the earth in half an hour back from winter to summer again, I spoke of our American climate.It was a potent drug, I said, for millions to be swallowing every day."Yes," said he, wiping the damp from his Winchester rifle.Our American climate, I said, had worked remarkable changes, at least."Yes," he said; and did not ask what they were.So I had to tell him. "It has made successful politicians of the Irish. That's one. And it has given our whole race the habit of poker."Bang went his Winchester. The bullet struck close to my left. I sat up angrily."That's the first foolish thing I ever saw you do!" I said."Yes," he drawled slowly, "I'd ought to have done it sooner. He was pretty near lively again." And then he picked up a rattlesnake six feet behind me. It had been numbed by the hail, part revived by the sun, and he had shot its head off.

Seems to me that the Virginian was not only taking helpful action, but also having a bit of fun with his traveling companion.Although I haven't finished the book yet (it's a bit tedious), this part got my attention to apply in the creation-evolution debate. Some evolutionists and anti-creationists think we're just shooting our mouths off, but biblical creationists are hoping that evolutionists will give some consideration to what we have to say. Despite what many atheists and anti-creationists claim, creationist scientists do have serious science. There are evolutionists who have not taken the time to seriously examine the evidence that creationists present, and may even be unaware of flaws in things that are presented to substantiate evolution.Ultimately, we want people to realize that not only is evolution seriously lacking in scientific credibility, but that God's Word is true from the very first verse. We're sounding a warning and taking action to get your attention. To use a popular analogy, someone is walking toward a cliff and about to fall off. Someone else says, "Stop! Don't go any further!" Critics may say the one sounding the alarm is being unloving and should let the other one be, but if you study on it, you can see that the warning is a loving act.No, I'm not saying that believing in evolution will send you to Hell. But evolution is a distraction, and a substitute for the Creator's work. Rejecting the free gift salvation through Jesus Christ will have someone end up in Hell. We don't want that to happen. John 1:3, John 3:16-17, Col. 1:16-17, Rom. 3:23, Rom. 6:23, Eph. 2:8-9. Ultimately, we have your best interests at heart, and present material that you may not want to hear at first.

Looking for a comment area? You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, December 14, 2015

Why do evolutionists see things that are not there? Like a social media relationship status, "It's complicated". Scientists are not driven by facts alone, but by their presuppositions and other things. Since they assume that particles-to-paleoanthropologist evolution is "settled science", they frequently get a hankering to present evidence for evolution when none exists. If they were being scientific about science, these mistakes should be few and far between.

Dreadful evidence for evolution is exhibited like a prize pig at the county fair, but there's really nothing to show to the judges. There are many articles about alleged transitional forms, but it seems to take someone who can take a step back and seriously examine what is trotted out, and then see that there's nothing to pay any mind to after all.Why did Piltdown Man fool the evolutionary community for over 40 years, and why are Darwinistas still chasing down bad leads? A bit of psychology, plus the desire to deny evidence that shows the Creator, are some of the reasons. There's more. Like I said, it's complicated.

The role imagination can play in the mental processing of data helps explain how someone who believes the naturalistic evolutionary worldview can look at fossil bones and “see” transitional features or look at an odd fish from the ocean depths and “see” primitive features that others don’t.Eminent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould details why inherent elements of evolutionary theory must appeal to our imaginative ability to “see” the unseen things from the past. He describes one such element as extrapolationism or scope, in which researchers use “history from data of an imperfect record that cannot, in any case, ‘see’ past causes directly, but can only draw conclusions from preserved results of these causes.” This is accomplished, he says, by explaining “large-scale results by extrapolation from short-term processes…[and] extrapolation to longer times and effects of evolutionary changes actually observed in historic times (usually by analogy to domestication and horticulture).”Extrapolation in the sense Gould identifies isn’t the same as an inferential conclusion but always invokes some imagination to project from the known to the unknown—it fills in the gaps. Intervening time or distance is usually proportional to how much conjecture is summoned; the larger the gap, the more imagination is needed. For instance, what explains the apparent design of interrelated parts in living things? Since people know that design is the cause of multiple parts purposely working together in man-made things, many people infer that intelligent design is also the cause of such parts in living creatures. Darwinists, however, see how organisms can change somewhat in observable time, extrapolate this observation to immense time periods, and imagine radical changes in organisms.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

It may come as a shock, but various forms of electric current are present in many living things, including people. Various critters have a sensing ability called electroreception, which is present in certain kinds of fish. Darwinists assert (without evidence) that electroreception and the ability to generate current evolved different times. Although that's far-fetched enough, it gets worse for them because some species have direct current, and others have alternating current! Watt will they come up with to explain it?

Let's take a little diversion. Imagine two cowboys meeting on the trail:

"What's in them saddlebags, Bob?""Batteries, Clem. When I camp out, I like to jam on my electric guitar. Want to hear my rendition of 'Purple Haze'?""I've heard you play. Do you take requests?""Yup!""How 'bout them military songs? I'd like you to play 'Down by the River' and 'Fall In'.""Not funny, Clem."

The electric eel, which has been used in some of the earliest cartoon animations, really does exist, and it packs a wallop. Unlike Bob and his saddlebags, the electric eel has its own built-in battery pack, but it can still move, mate, hunt, and zap enemies or prey. Evolutionary explanations for all the parts coming into being so this bad boy can operate are ridiculous. The logical explanation is that it is the product of its Designer.

The electric eel (Electrophorus electricus) lurks in the murky waters of the swamps and rivers of northern South America. With its highly sophisticated system of electrolocation, it is a stealthy predator, having the ability to navigate and hunt in conditions of low visibility. Using ‘electroreceptors’ to detect distortions in an electric field generated within its own body, it can locate a potential meal undetected. It then immobilizes its prey using a powerful electric shock, sizeable enough to stun a large mammal such as a horse, or even kill a man. Having a long cylindrical body it closely resembles what we commonly understand by eels (order Anguilliformes); however it belongs to a different fish order (Gymnotiformes).Fish that can detect electric fields are called electroreceptive and those that can generate strong electric fields like these eels are called electrogenic.

Friday, December 11, 2015

There are many speculations put forward as to why dinosaurs became extinct, and some are rather outlandish. The most common idea is that an asteroid fell to Earth and caused them to head for the last roundup, but it doesn't have a lot of explaining power. Others have suggested that volcanoes had something to do with the dino die-out. Lately, some geology work prompted a new idea: both asteroids and volcanoes.

Scan of Bulgaria stamp from my collection, with added clip art from Clker

While uniformitarian assumptions and the circular reasoning in radiometric dating are unreliable, they do give relative dates to work from. Some Genesis Flood geology models postulate that, since the rain was supplemented by the fountains of the deep being broken up (Genesis 7:11), an asteroid impact may have been a part of the great global Flood. Rapid fossilization, plate tectonics, volcanic activity, the Ice Age, change in climate — the whole shootin' match supports creation science models.

There have been many dinosaur extinction hypotheses. For the past 25 years since the discovery and identification of the Chicxulub crater in Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula, the asteroid impact theory has been the dominant model. There have been a number of scientists who favored the Volcanic Demise hypothesis though, and some have even proposed a combination of impact and volcanism. A more recent discovery reported in October seems to bolster the latter argument.

Thursday, December 10, 2015

Funny how when people think they have things all figured out, things change and there's not so much understood after all. The predictability factor in cosmic and biological evolution does not inspire confidence. Sure, you'll find assertive tinhorn evolutionists who will believe in various forms of evolution despite the evidence, but don't pay them no nevermind.The fact remains that fundamental beliefs in science keep getting overturned; consensus science isn't good science. Physics in particular has been taking a beating as of late.

Analysis of zircon in moon rocks is being reconsidered, which has implications for the age of the Earth and, therefore, evolution. The study of subatomic particles called kaons may change the Big Bang cosmogony (again). Dark matter and considerations of universal constants. Oh, yes, a whole passel of tinkering with things that are only theoretical, or based on evolutionary presuppositions, maybe both — there's a lot to learn about how the universe works. It would help if they stopped trying to find ways of denying the Creator and got back to doing actual science.

Beware the myth of progress. There’s more scientists don’t know than what they know.Once in awhile, a headline will suggest that a new finding could “challenge our understanding of” physics, biology, or some other field of science. Sometimes these things are brushed off or simply incorporated into the consensus web of belief. Enough anomalies, though, can begin a scientific revolution. Here are a few rumblings in the science news with potential to explode.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

In addition to bad science and dreadful logic, evolutionary thinking has produced "social Darwinism". This in turn has given us the evil of eugenics, where humans have taken the evolutionary view of natural selection into their own hands. Some people have decided that other people are unfit to reproduce, or even unfit to continue living.

Having atheists and evolutionists influencing laws and policies like they did in the past could be disastrous to society, since they have a faulty moral compass. (A tremendous irony of inconsistency is that when it comes to ethics, evolutionists stand on the Christian worldview.) Unfortunately, eugenics is gaining ground again.What if it was the other way around? Suppose people wised up and realized that they've saddled the wrong horse and evolution is flat-out wrong? Maybe evolutionists would be forcibly sterilized to stop the bad-thinking genes; atheists and evolutionists are unfit to reproduce, and even to continue to exist. Yes, that's absurd, especially since Christians who believe that people were recently created in God's image should have rights and dignity.

Imagine yourself a young woman diagnosed as “feeble-minded” and trapped in legal proceedings. You take the defense of your personal autonomy to the Supreme Court and finally hear your name in this decision:

Carrie Buck “is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization,” and thereupon make the order. [The “order” is compulsory submission to “the operation of salpingectomy…for the purpose of making her sterile.”]

In Carrie Buck’s failed 1927 Constitutional challenge, the Court upheld a Virginian law that applied Darwinian eugenics (programs selectively propagating the “fitter,” “well born,” or “good races”) to promote state welfare. In its aftermath, eugenics laws in 31 other states were upheld.Emboldened by the consensus of scientists, evolutionary research, and now the Supreme Court decision, forced sterilizations of “unfit” citizens increased dramatically throughout the 1930s. Remarkably, sterilizations in some states actually increased after World War II.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Once again, the hands at the Darwin Ranch have come up with a scheme that allegedly answers questions about how life made the move onto land. Of course, this is based on their assumptions that life evolved in the first, place, and that life began in the oceans, not on land.

Evolutionary scientists are spinning a yarn about how they "solved the problem" by saying that algae made it up onto land and somehow survived. After that, evolution commenced to happening. This raises quite a few questions.

One problem that they conveniently ignore is how DNA is in place and working already. Then there is the question of nutrients. After that, we see credit given to algae and evolution itself for making decisions. No, the Creator made the decisions, and that involved recent creation on land.

A recent study on algae supposedly sheds light on how aquatic life became terrestrial. So the story goes, “450 million years ago, alga from the earth's waters splashed up on to barren land. Somehow it survived and took root, a watershed moment that kick-started the evolution of life on earth,” according to Dr. Delaux of University of Wisconsin, Madison, or, well, any evolutionary scientist. But Dr. Delaux thinks they know the “somehow” now. This is significant, they think, because plants use carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, without which further life could not have evolved. Today, however, photosynthetic marine life like algae and microscopic phytoplankton make up most of the oxygen production, so it is questionable that plant life would need to migrate landward for evolution to move forward for the sake of gas exchange. But one must explain the existence of terrestrial plant life, too!

Monday, December 7, 2015

Sure has been busy out there, thataway. Probes to Comet 67P, probes to Mars, probes to gas giants and their moons, New Horizons does a flyby shooting of Pluto and its neighbors. Lots of information has been sent back to Earth. Nice pictures, too. Some people may be old enough to remember Sputnik 1 going "beep...beep...beep..." Only this, and nothing more. Quite a contrast.

Unfortunately for long-age advocates, the solar system isn't acting "old", but more like it's thousands of years old — which is what biblical creationists have been saying all along. Assessing data from Pluto has been startling to secular scientists, and they have been hard pressed to explain away the youthful features found in that neighborhood. Wonder what will happen when more data arrives?

With the recent flyby of Pluto now in the history books, it’s time to compare what scientists predicted with what they found.It’s been very fulfilling for senior citizens who watched the birth of the space program in 1957 to see the final leg of space reconnaissance of our solar system. Sure, Pluto has been demoted to a ‘dwarf planet’, but for most old-school students, it was the Ninth Planet—the only one never visited by spacecraft. That all changed on 14 July, 2015 with the phenomenally successful flyby of Pluto and its moons by the New Horizons spacecraft.We should take this opportunity to thank the many engineers and scientists who took the world along vicariously on this great adventure to the far reaches of our solar system. It took copious amounts of intelligent design to outfit a spacecraft, ‘fly’ it for 9½ years, and operate it with just one shot at success.Data from the encounter will continue trickling down to earth for months to come, but enough has arrived to take stock of the big news. Interpreting data is very different from obtaining it.